Does water baptism save us

[mailmandan]

Baptism is for remission of sins, repentance does not remit sins,

Once again, in Acts 2:38, "for the remission of sins" does not refer back to both clauses, "you all repent" and "each one of you be baptized," but refers only to the first. Peter is saying "repent unto the remission of your sins," the same as in Acts 3:19. The clause "each one of you be baptized" is parenthetical. Believing/faith in Him (Jesus Christ) "implied in genuine repentance" certainly does remit sins. Peter clearly stated in Acts 3:19 - Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord. Result of repentance - conversion, sins blotted out. New direction of this change of mind in repentance unto life, believing in Him for salvation. In Acts 10:43, Peter clearly stated - ..whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins. Acts 11:17,18 - If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ/repentance unto life.

that is why Peter said in 1 Pet 3:21 baptism saves, not rpentance saves.

Peter did not simply say that baptism saves and stopped there. Peter went on to explain what he meant - "not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." If Peter actually meant that the mechanical act of water baptism itself literally saved us, then why didn't he simply say so in 1 Peter 3:21 instead of explaining further exactly what he meant? Also, why didn't he simply say so in Acts 3:19 and Acts 10:43?

In Acts 22:16 it would be in baptism that Saul sins would be washed away.

No, the physical act of baptism itself does not literally wash away our sins. Baptism is the outward symbol of the cleansing from sin that occurs when we repent and believe the gospel (Acts 3:19; 10:43; 11:17,18; Romans 1:16). Repentance/faith results in cleansing, but baptism pictures this. Daniel Wallace explains in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: It is possible that to a first-century Jewish audience (as well as to Peter), the idea of baptism might incorporate both the spiritual reality and the physical symbol (although only the reality remits sins). So the reality is repentance (Acts 2:38); believes in Him (Acts 10:43); calling on His name (Acts 22:16); the answer of a good conscience toward God (1 Peter 3:21). Baptism is the picture of the reality, but not the reality itself. Salvation/Remission of sins, is signified, yet not procured by the waters of baptism.

1 Pet 3:21 Peter said 8 souls saved by water.

The NAS says - eight persons, were brought safely through the water. So does the NKJV and the ESV and NIV. The context reveals that the subjects, the eight souls "saved," were those in NOAH'S ARK. Those who were not in the ark perished. These reputable translations above read "saved THROUGH water," since the Greek work (di) translated "by" in the KJV means "THROUGH." If Noah and his family were not in the ark, please explain to me how the water would have saved them?

You say "Water was not the means of their salvation, but the ark."

Amen! Hebrews 11:7 is clear on this point (..built an ark for the SAVING of his household). Do you disagree with Hebrews 11:7? Noah and his family were saved THROUGH water as they we in the ARK. Who came in contact with the water and did it save them? Would they have been saved if they were in the ark?

You are clearly changing what Peter said to avoid the inevitable fact Peter is saying water baptism saves. So you have no valid argument by changing verses.

No, I am taking into consideration everything that Peter said and not simply isolating only the words that I want to hear, like you are. I am not ignoring the words "not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ," which explains what Peter meant and it's not water baptism literally saves. I am also not ignoring Hebrews 11:7 - "built and ark for the SAVING of his household."

 

[mailmandan]

Jn 3:5-----------------water
1Cor12:13------------baptized
Tts 3:5------------washing of regeneration
Eph 5:26-----------washing of water

All verse refer to the new birth with equivalent terms referring to water baptism, not a physical birth.

Where do these equivalent terms mention "water baptism?" John 3:5 says born of water and the Spirit, not born of baptism. 1 Corinthians 12:13 says - For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free--and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. Plain ordinary H20 has no power to place you into the body of Christ. This is a clear reference to Spirit baptism, not water baptism.

Now compare with John 4:10 - If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, 'Give Me a drink,' you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water. John 4:14 - but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life. Jesus connects this living water here with everlasting life. Living water is not water baptism.

The washing of regeneration is a reference to spiritual washing or purification of the soul, accomplished by the Holy Spirit through the Word of God at the moment of salvation. Washing of water by the Word (Ephesians 5:26). Having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the Word of God which lives and abides forever (1 Peter 1:23).

See how this all fits together?

 

[BradC]

Thinking Theistically

An Exegesis of James 2:14-26
CM Morrison

For those Christians who hold to salvation by faith alone, James 2:14-26 presents a difficulty. Does it contradict the Paul, or does it simply teach that genuine faith necessarily produces good works? We would like to suggest that both of views are mistaken and there is a third, simpler way to understand the passage. Let’s look at the entire passage in question:

What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself. But someone may well say, “You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.” You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “And Abraham believed god, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,” and he was called the friend of God. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead. (James 2:14-26, NASB)


​

Can faith without works save? According to this passage, the clear answer is no. In fact, taken plainly, this passage actually teaches that works are necessary for salvation. The obvious meaning is that faith plus works saves. The argument that faith alone does save, but that genuine faith necessarily produces good works, cannot be supported by these verses, for the passage clearly says, “you see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”

This text teaches salvation by works. In fact, this is not the first time in the book that James has stated as much. James 1:21-22 says, “Therefore, putting aside all filthiness and all that remains of wickedness, in humility receive the word implanted, which is able to save your souls. But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves.” Notice in this verse that the word implanted saves one’s soul only if they prove themselves doers of it, for those who do not do (work) are deluded. They have not received the word and are not saved.
Before we declare that there is an obvious contradiction with Paul’s salvation by grace through faith without works, let us consider this very simple solution:

James is not referring to eternal salvation in these verses.
James 1:21-22, while seeming to contribute to the problem, actually offers us the solution and puts 2:14-26 in its proper context. Notice that it says the word implanted is “able to save your souls.” This word “soul” is psuche. It can mean either “soul” or “life.” In this passage, it should be rendered “life,” thus saying, “receive the word implanted, which is able to save your lives.” The word “save” here is the same word for “save” in 2:14. It is soze and means either “to save” or “to deliver.” Thus, the idea both 1:21 and 2:14 is “deliver your life [from death].” Neither of these passages refers to final, eternal salvation by grace through faith alone. What this passage is addressing is the ability of the Christian life to deliver a person from physical destruction!

Actually, this is the theme of the entire epistle of James. The book has been properly noted to be the wisdom literature of the New Testament. If one follows the advice in this book, their life will be much easier. If they ignore it, they will find themselves being destroyed.
With this idea, let’s turn our attention back to 2:14-26. James asks what good is it for a man to say he has faith, but doesn’t do anything with it. The answer is that it isn’t any good at all. Faith, by itself, doesn’t do anything. We then have the controversial phrase, “Can that faith save him?” It is important to note, however, that the word “that” (found in some translations) isn’t in the Greek. Those who prefer the King James Version will be happy to know that the rendering there is correct. The phrase should be translated, “Can faith save him?” The reason “that” is provided is that the Greek article ho immediately precedes and modifies “faith” (gk.pistis) and rarely can be translated a weak demonstrative pronoun. The article, however, has many uses, and one of the most common, which James seems to be using here, is to identify abstract nouns, such as, in this case, “faith.”

Having stated that faith cannot save a person, James then proceeds to give an example. A brother is in need, and a man in his faith says good things, but does nothing for him. What is the result? The brother will die in his need because the man did not help him. Faith alone did not save, which is exactly what James had already said in 1:21. Were the man to put his faith into action, his brother’s life could have been delivered (“saved”). Thus, James is right in that faith without works is dead. It can deliver no one from anything.

Commentators are unanimous in thinking the next few verses are James’ attempt to deal with an objection, much as Paul frequently does throughout his writings. This objector interrupts, saying, saying, “You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.” This, of course, is not the way we normally look at this. We usually put the closing quotation and “by my works,” and we have James’ response begin at “You believe.” Still others limit the objector’s words to “You have faith and I have works.” There are two reasons for the lack of agreement on the limit of the objection. The first is that there were no quotation marks in Greek, so the reader must decide where a quotation begins and ends based only on context. The second is that each statement in the objection seems to agree with the argument James is making! Look at each statement:

“You have faith and I have works.” James certainly wants this to be the case. In fact, James’ entire point is that he wants his readers to engage in more works.
“Show me your faith apart from works.” This, of course, is impossible, which is exactly the point James already made in his own example above.
“And I will show you my faith by my works.” Again, this is the very point James is trying to make. The only way to demonstrate your faith is through works.
“You believe God is one. You do well; even the demons believe and shudder!” The phrase “God is One” is the Shema, which comes from Deuteronomy 6:4 and was the basic expression of orthodoxy among Jews. Thus, this “objector” complains that James is orthodox, but that is worthless, because even demons are orthodox, which accomplishes nothing. Yet it is obvious that this statement, again, is only reinforcing James’ point, which is that faith, or orthodoxy, apart from works, means nothing.

In light of this, we should not view this section as the words of an objector at all, but rather as a witness James is calling in to make his point in a different way. The verse begins with, “But someone may say.” The word “but” here is the Greek word alla, which is the strong disjunction in the Greek language. It can usually be translated with “on the other hand” or “nevertheless” to demonstrate its force. However, occasionally, it can be used to heighten a point by stating it in a different way. One such example of this is found in John 16:2, which the NIV renders as follows:

“They will put you out of the synagogue; in fact [alla], a time is coming when anyone who kills you will think he is offering a service to God.”
​

Clearly, alla in this verse does not mean “on the other hand.” Rather, the word is meant to heighten and intensify the point Jesus is making. James uses the same technique here. He had just argued that faith without works is dead, since it is by itself. You could render the next phrase, “In fact, someone might even say . . .” In this view, James is restating is point in another way to show his readers that their claims to orthodoxy are useless!
Having made his case, James returns to his point, asking, “But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?” Again, the NASB’s rendering of the word “but” here is probably off, since it implies that James is arguing against his witness. The Greek word behind this “but” is the word de, which is a weak disjunctive, and can be rendered many ways, including “now,” “and,” “but,” “still,” “yet,” etc. This should be read, “Now are you willing to recognize . . .”

By now, James’ basic point is very clear. Orthodoxy (right belief) without orthopraxy (right practice) is useless. To bolster his point, James offers a few examples from the Old Testament. First, he notes that Abraham was justified by works and not by faith alone when he offered up Isaac.
We should note here that if anyone still wants to argue that James is not talking about a works based salvation, then this verse kills that idea. Now if we take this passage to be salvation from Hell, we have a major problem, because it says that Abraham was “justified.” This doesn’t merely mean delivered. This is that judicial term that Paul uses to refer to the crediting of righteousness. One again, the traditional Reformed view simply does not take the text seriously. Either this passage denies Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith alone, or it is teaching something else.
How, then, was Abraham justified by works? James says,

“Because his faith was working with his works, and his works perfected his faith. Therefore, the Scripture was fulfilled that Abraham believed and was justified.”

​

Thus, we “see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” At this point, there are two possible ways to handle the passage. First, we can point out that the word “alone” should be better rendered “only,” meaning that James actually is arguing for one justification by faith (which is what Paul talked about) which resulted in righteousness and one justification by works, which resulted in vindication of that faith, most likely before men. This view works grammatically and fits with the context.

Another way to look at the passage is to deny that James has Paul’s use of the word “justify” in mind at all. In fact, if James wrote his epistle in the early forties, then the chances are that he had never even heard Paul’s sermons, so the thought of using the word in its Roman legal context likely never crossed his mind. He probably was using it in the more common sense of “vindication.” Notice that James says Genesis 15:6 was “fulfilled.” Further, notice that James points out that Abraham was then called “a friend of God.” It appears the justification he had in mind was not at all Abraham’s being declared righteous, but instead, his having the right to be declared a friend of God and the father of the faithful. In either view, there is no reason to think that James’ doctrine at all contradicts the Pauline notion of justification by faith alone.

James then continues to press his point. In verse 25 he gives the example of Rahab. It is absolutely the perfect illustration of his point. Rahab had helped the spies out of Jericho because she had believed in their words. However, she then perfected, or matured, or vindicated her faith by helping the spies. The result was her salvation, not from Hell, but from death! Merely believing the spies’ words would not have saved her. She would have died with the rest of the city. But because her faith was working with works, she was saved. And thus, James concludes the matter for the time being with the summary statement that faith without works is dead. Works animate faith. Faith is the body. Works are the spirit, so to speak.

In conclusion, there is no reason to suppose that this passage in James at all contradicts Paul’s idea of salvation by grace through faith. It cannot be used, however, to prove the idea that real faith necessarily produces good works. James never questions whether or not his readers are really believers. On the contrary, he consistently refers to them as “brothers.” His point is that believers ought to make it a point to live out what they profess to believe if they want to experience the abundant life Jesus promised in John 10:10.

 

[Daley]

Mark 16:16 says whoever believes and is baptized with be saved. So which verse is the right one?

ACts 16 also shows where they believed and were baptized the same day. Not months or years apart.

Mark 16:17, 18, KJ: “These signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.”

These verses appear in certain Bible manuscripts and versions of the fifth and sixth centuries C.E. But they do not appear in the older Greek manuscripts, the Sinaiticus and Vatican MS. 1209 of the fourth century. Dr. B. F. Westcott, an authority on Bible manuscripts, said that “the verses . . . are no part of the original narrative but an appendage.” (An Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, London, 1881, p. 338) Bible translator Jerome, in the fifth century, said that “almost all the Greek codices [are] without this passage.” (The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark, London, 1871, J. W. Burgon, p. 53) The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967) says: “Its vocabulary and style differ so radically from the rest of the Gospel that it hardly seems possible Mark himself composed it [that is, verses 9-20].” (Vol. IX, p. 240) There is no record that early Christians either drank poison or handled serpents to prove they were believers. But if you believe these verses are genuine, go drink some poison and see if it won't hurt you. I hope you know better than that!

Yes they were baptized the same day, but Paul and Silas didn't tell them they had to do this to be saved. He said to believe in Jesus and be saved.

 

[Jabberjaw]

You obviously haven't read Eph 2:8--9.
Or Titus 3: 5.

I have read and studied both, it is obvious you haven't understood what "faith" and "Grace" actually mean in Eph 2:8-9 or what "works" Paul is talking about, water baptism is not simply a work of man, it is commanded to be done by Christians to make disciples, but it is the "works of God" and why it must be done "in the name of" or "authority of" the "Father, Son and the Holy Ghost".

Titus 3:5 is water baptism, it is parallel to other verses written by Paul, note it :

Titus 3:5 (NKJV) not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit,

1 Corinthians 6:11 (NKJV) And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

This is water baptism, would Paul have advised these people any different means than that he had done himself?

Acts 22:16 (KJV)
[SUP]16 [/SUP]And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Here Paul was "washed" he was "sanctified" he was "justified" in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of God.

 

[saved1975]

I have read and studied both, it is obvious you haven't understood what "faith" and "Grace" actually mean in Eph 2:8-9 or what "works" Paul is talking about, water baptism is not simply a work of man, it is commanded to be done by Christians to make disciples, but it is the "works of God" and why it must be done "in the name of" or "authority of" the "Father, Son and the Holy Ghost".

Titus 3:5 is water baptism, it is parallel to other verses written by Paul, note it :

Titus 3:5 (NKJV) not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit,

1 Corinthians 6:11 (NKJV) And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

This is water baptism, would Paul have advised these people any different means than that he had done himself?

Acts 22:16 (KJV)
[SUP]16 [/SUP]And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Here Paul was "washed" he was "sanctified" he was "justified" in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of God.

You are twisting the scriptures.
According to the Greek Bible texts, water baptism is only symbolic of salvation, NOT the thing that saves us.


If you read my posts on this subject, you will see that the Bible and the Greek proves that water baptism doesn't save.

 

[Daley]

The OT saints were saved, but they were not baptized. The thief on the cross was saved, but was not baptized. Go figure.

 

[SeaBass]

The OT saints were saved, but they were not baptized. The thief on the cross was saved, but was not baptized. Go figure.

Obviously none of these are examples of NT salvation.

 

[SeaBass]

Thinking Theistically

An Exegesis of James 2:14-26
CM Morrison



This text teaches salvation by works. In fact, this is not the first time in the book that James has stated as much. James 1:21-22 says, “Therefore, putting aside all filthiness and all that remains of wickedness, in humility receive the word implanted, which is able to save your souls. But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves.” Notice in this verse that the word implanted saves one’s soul only if they prove themselves doers of it, for those who do not do (work) are deluded. They have not received the word and are not saved.

Good point.

 

[SeaBass]

Where do these equivalent terms mention "water baptism?" John 3:5 says born of water and the Spirit, not born of baptism. 1 Corinthians 12:13 says - For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free--and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. Plain ordinary H20 has no power to place you into the body of Christ. This is a clear reference to Spirit baptism, not water baptism.

Now compare with John 4:10 - If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, 'Give Me a drink,' you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water. John 4:14 - but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life. Jesus connects this living water here with everlasting life. Living water is not water baptism.

The washing of regeneration is a reference to spiritual washing or purification of the soul, accomplished by the Holy Spirit through the Word of God at the moment of salvation. Washing of water by the Word (Ephesians 5:26). Having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the Word of God which lives and abides forever (1 Peter 1:23).

See how this all fits together?

Huh????????


Jn 3:5-----------------water
1Cor12:13------------baptized
Tts 3:5------------washing of regeneration
Eph 5:26-----------washing of water


When comparing these 4 verses that all deal with the new birth, you cannot see (refuse to see) how water is made equivalent to baptized that is made equivalent to washing of regeneration that is made equivalent to washing of water?

 

[secularhermit]

Oh yes! The more I´m baptized the more I will be saved... (just kidding). It is a gift, an invitation, but THAT salvation also have conditions. Example: Will you marry someone who cheats on, who is sick with aids and often (too often make your life a misery)? That would apply for those who have considered OURSELVES saved and righteous.

Just my opinion! I´m not GOD nor Jesus, His Son.

 

[saved1975]

The OT saints were saved, but they were not baptized. The thief on the cross was saved, but was not baptized. Go figure.

Also,
The disciples were baptised in water, But they weren't saved at that time.
Paul was saved three days before he was baptised in the Holy Ghost, And that was before he was baptised in water.
The Gentiles were saved, baptised in the Holy Ghost and spoke in tongues, But they weren't baptised in water at that time.

 

[heavenlyparadise]

Good point.

Do not be misunderstood brothers,,, all the good works are human basic behaviors that even so non-believers and other religions do very much. Why we, christians don't do human's basic moral behaviors more highly than the non-believers and other religions.
If we who are proclaiming himself ' I'm a Jesus's disciple', but don't do good works to neighbors, then we are the one who abused the Jesus and faith as a license to sin.

Brothers,,,all good deeds are human's basic behavior even the some animals doing good deeds,,,
because human was created as God's images,,this means if we don't do good deeds, then we, any human are below the moral standards our God input.
So, doing good deeds are basic thing for all believers and moreover,,,for all religions and all human.

 

[saved1975]

Obviously none of these are examples of NT salvation.

The Old Testament saints were awaiting the promise of salvation, And when Jesus died, He went and preached the gospel to them, And they received the promised salvation.
But there is no record of any of them being baptised in water, It'd the same with the thief on the cross.


Also,
The disciples were baptised in water, But they weren't saved at that time.
Paul was saved three days before he was baptised in the Holy Ghost, And that was before he was baptised in water.
The Gentiles were saved, baptised in the Holy Ghost and spoke in tongues, But they weren't baptised in water at that time.

The Bible proves that water baptism doesn't save, And the Greek Bible texts, Shows us that water baptism doesn't save.

 

[Jabberjaw]

You are twisting the scriptures.
According to the Greek Bible texts, water baptism is only symbolic of salvation, NOT the thing that saves us.


If you read my posts on this subject, you will see that the Bible and the Greek proves that water baptism doesn't save.

You overstate your Greek interpretation, the Greek says what the English says, it is my experience the majority of time that one needs to reference the Greek is because someone is twisting it in attempt to make their twisting the English as you are, credible.

 

[peacefulbeliever]

Works do not make you righteous - works are a result of your righteousness. You are not righteous unless you are born again and you are not born again except by the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh and Spirit gives birth to spirit.

Romans 4:5,6 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Jn 3:5-----------------water - This verse and verse 6 are not about baptism but being born again of the Spirit
1Cor12:13------------baptized - says we are baptized by one Spirit into one body
Tts 3:5------------washing of regeneration - The Greek word for "regeneration" means rebirth, i.e. new birth The new birth, being born again is ONLY accomplished by being born again of the Spirit
Eph 5:26-----------washing of water - I really don't think "water" here is literal - "washing of water by the word" - We are sanctified and cleansed through the new birth, being born again of the Spirit - that is the only thing that gives us right standing before God - not having spot or wrinkle, holy and without blemish

Romans 3:21,22 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

John 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do that we might work the works of God? jesus answered and said unto them, This the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Romans 10:3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Please stop liing agaisnt the very words of God, Peter said "baptism saves". You are a liar! sorry, Your mind is sick, Love Hoffco

Baptism of God saves, Not some baptism in water. Stop your false accusations, and stop trying to replace the baptism of God with the baptism of man, That is leaning on blasphemy of the spirit.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I am referring to your statement that water bap. "does not save" as all can see, you deny the very word of God by Peter's pen. "baptism save" . You lie!

Peter does not say Baptism saves. Look in the greek.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

maybe (but probably not *sigh*) it suffices to say:

a man baptized into the church who has no faith in Christ is not saved by his ritual act.

A man who has faith in some man dunking him water, And not in God cleansing him by baptizing him literally into the death and burial of Christ is not saved either, He gets wet.

 

[saved1975]

You overstate your Greek interpretation, the Greek says what the English says, it is my experience the majority of time that one needs to reference the Greek is because someone is twisting it in attempt to make their twisting the English as you are, credible.

The Bible and the Greek Bible texts prove that water baptism doesn't save.
The Bible translators have mislead us with some of the scriptures, And the scriptures about water baptism are just some of the wrongly translated scriptures.

But leaving the Greek out, When you read the Bible as a whole, It alone proves that water baptism doesn't save.
For instance, The OT saints never got baptised in water, The thief on the cross never got baptised in water, Paul and the Gentiles in Acts 10, Were saved, baptised in the Holy Ghost and spoke in tongues, But they weren't baptised in water.

The disciples were baptised in water, But they weren't saved.

So if you take the Bible as a whole, You will see that water baptism doesn't save.